HG 2e Solar Panel p. 36 question

[-Daniel-]

Nobody's said that though, so that's a bit of a strawman. Solar panels are definitely not a "high power output" thing so those stand out, but a fusion plant with output in the hundreds of MW is fine. But if you just talk about PP then you get nonsense like solar panels being equivalent to a significant percentage of the output of a fusion plant, which is bonkers because then numbers are just being pulled out of thin air for an arbitrary unit.

But is that issue a lack of real world names or is it a byproduct of a lack of understanding how Solar Panels work? Regardless of how you measure the output of a source, the issue you describe could have still happened if the person creating the game rules did not understand how Solar Panels work I would imagine.

Side note, I was not trying to strawman you.

 

[wbnc]

I was mentioning that MT calculated output power in a unit of watts prior to TNE. However, neither, at least in my opinion, MT or TNE correlates to CT LBB 5 energy points. Mongoose appears to have followed CT LBB 5 for HG 2e.

I hate "power points" - if they're going to break down power output into units then why on earth don't they just use real units of power? Do publishers think that people are too stupid to handle that or something? Are they just terrified of science? Adding another abstraction layer just makes it unnecessarily opaque. Is there even any logic to how many PP are equivalent to say 1 MW? (I guess one would have to look at MT and TNE and compare their values with the ones in HG 2e)

On this, I can agree with you in principle. I happen o like the idea of knowing how much power in terms of real world units is in a "point" of power. A 25 mega Joule Pulse Laser cannon just has a nice solid feel to the wording. I know you are delivering as much destructive power as 25 stick of dynamite to a target. A Jump drive drawing one hundred megawatts of power displacement to of hull has a meatier feel to it.

However, from the viewpoint of the guy on the other side of the table, I can see why the generic term is used. The biggest complicating issue is that no one knows how much power a system would actually use at the levels of advancement the game takes place in.

It's possible to determine the power needed to accelerate (x) units of mass to (x )Gees of acceleration. Or how much power is needed to produce a laser that can vaporize x cubic meters of (x) material at (x) kilometers. and then calculate input power to a system, modify for system efficiency, to arrive at output power. I've played around with systems that could do that.

But it's far more complex when you don't know.

• How much power it takes to generate Jump bubble.
  How efficient technology several thousand years more advanced is
  What metals starships will be constructed out of
  Mass per cubic meter of hull.
  mass per cubic meter of drive
  mass per cubic meter of miscellaneous systems.
  power drain per cubic meter of artificial gravity system
  efficiency of a fictional drive system based on fictional science.

etc....

Unless you go through and assign real world values to each of a very long list of variables Megawatts, or gigawatts becomes about as accurate or relevant as "Scotts" to use someone else's term.

 

[fusor]

That's all very well, but MT and TNE went with realworld units and they somehow managed to pull it off, didn't they? Yes, it does require more thought and research as to what power requirements could be considered "reasonable" when designing the technology, and if that's done properly that can avoid the potential criticism that you guys are raising - but I think it's better than pulling numbers out of thin air as they seems to have done here. Things like HG and FF&S are design documents after all - the people who write things like that really should have some awareness of what the technologies they're talking about can do and how they work - if they did then they'd realise how crazy it is to suggest that "solar panels could increase the duration of a nuclear fusion power plant" significantly at all.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello AnotherDilbert,

I was mentioning that MT calculated output power in a unit of watts prior to TNE. However, neither, at least in my opinion, MT or TNE correlates to CT LBB 5 energy points. Mongoose appears to have followed CT LBB 5 for HG 2e.

1 HighGuard'80 EP = 250 MW.

1. Lasers: A shipboard laser is a beam or pulse laser with an input of 250 megawatts. The pulse laser has 3 lenses.
2. Plasma and Fusion Guns: A ship's plasma gun has in input of 250 megawatts; a fusion gun has an input of 500 megawatts.

Striker, Book 2, p41.

I am using Strikr12-v3 that came form Jake Collins in June/July 2016 for the characteristics/specifications of the lasers, fusion and plasma guns. Note that I downloaded a Strikr12-v2 back in 2011 from Citizens Of the Imperium files.

Using CT Striker Rule Book 3 Design Sequence 6 a TL 11 Beam Laser or 4 lens Pulse Laser with an input of 250 MW has an output of 62.5 MW and occupies a volume of 16.5 m^3 or rounding to two decimal places 1.18 d-tons. CT LBB 5 HE 2e p. 25 a a beam laser has a volume of 1 d-ton.

CT Striker Rule Book 3 Design Sequence 7 TL 11 Plasma Gun with an input of 250 MW has an output of 60 MW and occupies a volume of 7.5 m^3. A TL 11 Fusion with an input of 50 MW has an output of 120 MW and occupies a volume of 15 m^3. These two weapon according to CT LBB 5 HG 2e 1980 have a volume of 2 d-tons.

If the CT Striker Rule Book 3 design sequences using the power inputs from CT Striker Book 2 matched the displacement of the weapons in CT LBB 5 HG 2e I would agree that 1 EP in CT LBB 5 HG 2e = 250 MW in CT Striker 1981 5th printing Book 2 and CT Striker 1981 5th Printing Rule Book 3.

I created several rough spreadsheets of CT Striker Rule Book 3 Design Sequences, unfortunately mine are not complete enough to use.

CT Striker, MT, or TNE have not, in my opinion, defined how many kilowatts or megawatts are in 1 EP used by CT LBB 5 HG 2e 1980.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Power: A craft's power needs are measured in megawatts. One megawatt equals 1000 kilowatts. A term sometimes used to refer to the energy output of a space vehicle is an energy point (EP). One energy point equals 250 megawatts, or put another way, 4 energy points equal 1000 megawatts.

MT Referee's Manual, p57.

I just found the Striker reference faster, since I knew it was in there.

 

[fusor]

Which is all great for those editions, but do we have a MW value specifically for the MGT HG2e Power Point?

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello again AnotherDilbert,

Power: A craft's power needs are measured in megawatts. One megawatt equals 1000 kilowatts. A term sometimes used to refer to the energy output of a space vehicle is an energy point (EP). One energy point equals 250 megawatts, or put another way, 4 energy points equal 1000 megawatts.

MT Referee's Manual, p57.

I just found the Striker reference faster, since I knew it was in there.

In CT 1 d-ton = 14 m^3 while 1 MT d-ton is 13.5 m^3. The CT pulse laser is available at TL 9 while MT the laser is available at TL 7. The pulse laser's price in CT is Cr1,000,000 and in MT the price is Cr500,000. In CT the best USP Codes Rating for a pulse laser is 7 while the best UCP rating in MT is 8.

In my opinion the information that 1 MT EP = 250 MW is not the same as 1 CT EP which I have yet to find an source identifying the equivalent power output in watts, kilowatts, megawatts, or gigawatts.

I will agree however that MT is closer than CT Striker, note that T4 has a Striker source book too, or TNE.

On a couple of other forums I have tries using a similar approach with no backing from the other members.

I do agree however that the Power Points on some components seem to be high, but until there is a ruling my guess is that there is no equivalent MW to 1 Power Point unless a house rule is used.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello fusor,

Which is all great for those editions, but do we have a MW value specifically for the MGT HG2e Power Point?

I have not found any power output equivalents in MW in the material I have which is mainly first edition with PDF copies of Traveller Core Rule Book 2e and HG 2e.

From the posts in this topic thread there does not appear to be an equivalent MW to Power Point value, which does not mean that the value is not out there.

Could the Signs & Portents have an article about the how many MW equals 1 Power Point?

Does anyone know if there is a list of which issue of Signs & Portents has Traveller related material?

 

[fusor]

I guess one would have to pick a fusion power plant from MGT HG2e, try to find the equivalent in terms of size/volume from MT or TNE, find that plant's output in MW, and then use that as an equivalent for PPs? (gah, too many acronyms!) Assuming it's even constant or consistent.

So if (let's say) an MGT plant generated 20 PP, and it was the same volume as a 200MW fusion plant from TNE, then we could say that 1 PP in MGT is equivalent to 20 MW. Though it may be wise to check that the conversion factor is the same for a range of power plant volumes.

 

[Condottiere]

Last edition could get away with being vague; this edition they added something quantifiable, so you can put actual numbers to energy exchanges.

 

[AndrewW]

Does anyone know if there is a list of which issue of Signs & Portents has Traveller related material?

http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?t=36557&f=89

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Which is all great for those editions, but do we have a MW value specifically for the MGT HG2e Power Point?

I haven't seen even a hint of an official specification.

We can make rough estimates from PP size.

CT: 1 dT TL12 PP produces 1/3 EP ≈ 83 MW.
MT: 1 dT TL12 PP produces about 81 MW.
MgT2: 1 dT TL12 PP produces 15 Power.

Estimate: 15 Power ≈ 80 MW, so 1 Power ≈ 5 MW.


CT: 1 dT TL15 PP produces 1 EP = 250 MW.
MT: 1 dT TL15 PP produces about 243 MW.
MgT2: 1 dT TL15 PP produces 20 Power.

Estimate: 20 Power ≈ 250 MW, so 1 Power ≈ 12 MW.


If we choose other bases for conversion we will get rather different results, but the order of magnitude is probably correct. For ease of calculation we might use 1 Power = 10 MW, it's as good a guess as anything.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello AnotherDilbert,

Which is all great for those editions, but do we have a MW value specifically for the MGT HG2e Power Point?

I haven't seen even a hint of an official specification.

We can make rough estimates from PP size.

CT: 1 dT TL12 PP produces 1/3 EP ≈ 83 MW.
MT: 1 dT TL12 PP produces about 81 MW.
MgT2: 1 dT TL12 PP produces 15 Power.

Estimate: 15 Power ≈ 80 MW, so 1 Power ≈ 5 MW.


CT: 1 dT TL15 PP produces 1 EP = 250 MW.
MT: 1 dT TL15 PP produces about 243 MW.
MgT2: 1 dT TL15 PP produces 20 Power.

Estimate: 20 Power ≈ 250 MW, so 1 Power ≈ 12 MW.


If we choose other bases for conversion we will get rather different results, but the order of magnitude is probably correct. For ease of calculation we might use 1 Power = 10 MW, it's as good a guess as anything.

Until the publisher provides an equivalent 1 PP = x MW any number is an optional rule which can be used during a session when the players and referee agree to use the values. Even if the publisher provides such information there will be a quibble about the ruling especially when the value does not match an individual's estimate.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello AndrewW,

Does anyone know if there is a list of which issue of Signs & Portents has Traveller related material?

http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?t=36557&f=89

Thank you very much for the link, which I'm adding to my favorites.

 

[-Daniel-]

Does anyone know if there is a list of which issue of Signs & Portents has Traveller related material?

http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?t=36557&f=89

Thank You Andrew. Nice to know this is out there.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello all,

I want to that all of you again for the replies you have made on this topic thread both on solar panels and the attempt to determine the equivalent real world power rating in MW of 1 MgT HG 2e PP.

Unfortunately, my own attempts to figure out the equivalent MW per 1 CT EP using CT Striker, MT, and TNE have not met with any success on other forums/boards. Hopefully, the publisher(s) and authors of Mongoose source books will come up with the required information based on the material you have suggested.

Next, I believe and have not been able to locate the comment about the fission/fusion power plant fuel consumption requirement. IIRC the comment mentioned that the nuclear fuel should last longer than four weeks. My view based on serving onboard four nuclear submarines is that the fuel being was the L-Hyd used to keep the reactor cool and the heated fuel was then used by a turbine or something similar to generate electrical power.

Getting back to the original topic I'm going to try to see if I am on the right page concerning solar panels.

1. Per HG 2e p. 36 "The tonnage consumed by enough solar panels required to power a ship is equal to 10% that of the main power plant, to a minimum of 0.5 tons. Solar panels cost MCr0.1 per ton. A ship equipped with solar panels consumes power plant fuel at one–quarter the normal rate so long as it is only engaged in minimal manoeuvring and does not fire any weapons."

I think that the fuel consumption rate reduction of 1/4 means that the solar panel array generates 1/4 of the power plants output. If I'm correct then a ship's power plant with an output of 60 Power Points (PP) the deployed solar panel array would generate 15 PP.

If the power plant required 1 d-ton of fuel for 4 weeks of operation the installation and deployment of a solar panel array would extended the time to 16 weeks.

2. "No power plant fuel is consumed, and endurance is considered infinite, if the ship is not manoeuvring or refining fuel."

In my opinion a ship deploying solar panels will be engaged in minimal maneuvering to maintain station keeping at the location they deployed the panels which make the above

3. HG 2e p. 36 "If the panels are fitted to a ship without a power plant, then assume the (non–existent) power plant is sized to the ship’s basic systems and a Thrust 1 manoeuvre drive."

A ship requires a 2 d-ton fusion power plant to generate the Power Points needed to support a ship's basic systems and a maneuver drive thrust of 1. I think the source above means that a 2 d-ton solar panel array is supposed to be the equivalent of the 2 d-ton power plant.

From the discussion that has gone on I would think that solar array would have to be much larger than the (non-exist) power plant d-tons per the current instructions.

If my idea that a solar panel array generates 1/4 of the power plants power is true then perhaps the solar panels would require power plant size x 4.

Another approach maybe based on the requirement that solar panel's consume space at a minimum of 0.5 d-tons or 10% of the Power Plants d-tons. The solar panel array would be 10 x the power plant d-tons.

Am I on the right track?

 

[fusor]

1. Per HG 2e p. 36 "The tonnage consumed by enough solar panels required to power a ship is equal to 10% that of the main power plant, to a minimum of 0.5 tons. Solar panels cost MCr0.1 per ton. A ship equipped with solar panels consumes power plant fuel at one–quarter the normal rate so long as it is only engaged in minimal manoeuvring and does not fire any weapons."

I think that the fuel consumption rate reduction of 1/4 means that the solar panel array generates 1/4 of the power plants output. If I'm correct then a ship's power plant with an output of 60 Power Points (PP) the deployed solar panel array would generate 15 PP.

I think we've firmly established that the Solar Panel rules as stated in HG2e are unfeasible, unrealistic, incomplete, and incorrect. The rules are simply broken on this.

Right now, on earth, solar panels have about 15% efficiency, so 1 square metre generates about 150W. At 50% efficiency you'd get about 500W/m², 75% would be 750 W/m², At 100%, you'd get about 1000W/m².

So assuming 100% efficiency, you would need a 32x32m array to generate 1 MW. We've established that Power Points must be of the order of 10MW each. So 1 PP (10 MW) would require about 100m x 100m of solar arrays. If you want a quarter of a power plant's worth, you're probably looking at arrays on the order of 1 km x 1km at least.

But remember, this is assuming 100% efficiency at earth's distance from the sun. Realistically the maximum efficiency is nowhere near 100% due to physical limitations - the most efficient experimental cells we have today are around 45%. So maybe we can assume that 75% is the maximum practical efficiency that a society with higher tech could get - if so then that would increase the area required to an array that is 115x115 metres for each 10MW Power Point.

And then adjust that for luminosity and distance based on the table I posted earlier in the thread.

So really it depends on whether you think that vast kilometre-scale solar panels are particularly practical for ships (or even space stations).

 

[wbnc]

1. Per HG 2e p. 36 "The tonnage consumed by enough solar panels required to power a ship is equal to 10% that of the main power plant, to a minimum of 0.5 tons. Solar panels cost MCr0.1 per ton. A ship equipped with solar panels consumes power plant fuel at one–quarter the normal rate so long as it is only engaged in minimal manoeuvring and does not fire any weapons."

I think that the fuel consumption rate reduction of 1/4 means that the solar panel array generates 1/4 of the power plants output. If I'm correct then a ship's power plant with an output of 60 Power Points (PP) the deployed solar panel array would generate 15 PP.

I think we've firmly established that the Solar Panel rules as stated in HG2e are unfeasible, unrealistic, incomplete, and incorrect. The rules are simply broken on this.

Right now, on earth, solar panels have about 15% efficiency, so 1 square metre generates about 150W. At 50% efficiency you'd get about 500W/m², 75% would be 750 W/m², At 100%, you'd get about 1000W/m².

So assuming 100% efficiency, you would need a 32x32m array to generate 1 MW. We've established that Power Points must be of the order of 10MW each. So 1 PP (10 MW) would require about 100m x 100m of solar arrays. If you want a quarter of a power plant's worth, you're probably looking at arrays on the order of 1 km x 1km at least.

But remember, this is assuming 100% efficiency at earth's distance from the sun. Realistically the maximum efficiency is nowhere near 100% due to physical limitations - the most efficient experimental cells we have today are around 45%. So maybe we can assume that 75% is the maximum practical efficiency that a society with higher tech could get - if so then that would increase the area required to an array that is 115x115 metres for each 10MW Power Point.

And then adjust that for luminosity and distance based on the table I posted earlier in the thread.

So really it depends on whether you think that vast kilometre-scale solar panels are particularly practical for ships (or even space stations).

however I did point out that quantum dot solar cells are only a few hundred nanometers thick, and an electroactive polymer fiber could form a semi-rigid framework...put the "dots" on a carbon nanofiber mesh and you have a film 1/10th the thickness of a sheet of paper that can self-deploy and remain deployed during routine station keeping. The framework would be a series of "wires" only a millimeter thick at max....that would allow rather large lightweight arrays in insanely small packages...that's using existing technology and concepts...insanely expensive at current TL and probably beyond current technical abilities but feasible with higher tech levels.

 

[fusor]

however I did point out that quantum dot solar cells are only a few hundred nanometers thick, and an electroactive polymer fiber could form a semi-rigid framework...put the "dots" on a carbon nanofiber mesh and you have a film 1/10th the thickness of a sheet of paper that can self-deploy and remain deployed during routine station keeping. The framework would be a series of "wires" only a millimeter thick at max....that would allow rather large lightweight arrays in insanely small packages...that's using existing technology and concepts...insanely expensive at current TL and probably beyond current technical abilities but feasible with higher tech levels.

Then your solar panels become a solar sail, and you'd have the acceleration from that to worry about too. And it would be very fragile (I wouldn't want to imagine trying to unfurl solar panels that are that thin).

Really, I have to wonder what the point of the solar panels is here - the only possible reason I can see for having solar panels on a large spaceship is as an emergency backup (which also assumes you're going to be close enough to a bright star to get any use out of them). Otherwise, you're going to have a power plant because the power requirements for ship components is massive.

The only other use I can think of is what we have today - small drive-less probes and drones where the panels can provide all the power for the sensors. Maybe lifeboats/escape pods too.

They're certainly NOT going to be used to supplement or "extend the life of" fusion plants though, that'd just be ridiculous.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello fusor,

Thank you for the reply.

1. Per HG 2e p. 36 "The tonnage consumed by enough solar panels required to power a ship is equal to 10% that of the main power plant, to a minimum of 0.5 tons. Solar panels cost MCr0.1 per ton. A ship equipped with solar panels consumes power plant fuel at one–quarter the normal rate so long as it is only engaged in minimal manoeuvring and does not fire any weapons."

I think that the fuel consumption rate reduction of 1/4 means that the solar panel array generates 1/4 of the power plants output. If I'm correct then a ship's power plant with an output of 60 Power Points (PP) the deployed solar panel array would generate 15 PP.

I think we've firmly established that the Solar Panel rules as stated in HG2e are unfeasible, unrealistic, incomplete, and incorrect. The rules are simply broken on this.

Right now, on earth, solar panels have about 15% efficiency, so 1 square metre generates about 150W. At 50% efficiency you'd get about 500W/m², 75% would be 750 W/m², At 100%, you'd get about 1000W/m².

So assuming 100% efficiency, you would need a 32x32m array to generate 1 MW. We've established that Power Points must be of the order of 10MW each. So 1 PP (10 MW) would require about 100m x 100m of solar arrays. If you want a quarter of a power plant's worth, you're probably looking at arrays on the order of 1 km x 1km at least.

But remember, this is assuming 100% efficiency at earth's distance from the sun. Realistically the maximum efficiency is nowhere near 100% due to physical limitations - the most efficient experimental cells we have today are around 45%. So maybe we can assume that 75% is the maximum practical efficiency that a society with higher tech could get - if so then that would increase the area required to an array that is 115x115 metres for each 10MW Power Point.

And then adjust that for luminosity and distance based on the table I posted earlier in the thread.

So really it depends on whether you think that vast kilometre-scale solar panels are particularly practical for ships (or even space stations).

Yes, we have established that in our real world that solar panels as described in the Mongoose Traveller universe will not work. However, any Traveller Universe is not the real world, even though its background like a majority of science fiction stories starts out with links to the real world.

I was not asking if the Mongoose Traveller Science Fiction Universe solar panel rules work in the real world/universe, the quest is Does what I have written appear to be plausible in the Mongoose Traveller Science Fiction Universe?

Yes, it would be nice if Traveller or any other science fiction bases game or book mirrored the real world, they do not because they are a possible outcome of the real world.

As also been discussed the jump drive and maneuver drive are currently impossible to build with the current real world technology and science we have. Heck I do not understand how the interstellar drives in the books written by David Weber and David Drake work.